Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-07-Speech-2-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050607.25.2-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Soviet Union had a total of 10 economic plans. The European Union, for its part, has already had four budgetary plans: the Delors I and Delors II packages, the Santer plan and now the Barroso plan for the period from 2007 to 2013.
The Soviet plans, however, were designed to build up the economy, whereas the European budgetary plans are balancing mechanisms in which flies’ eggs are weighed on spiders’ webs. Our debate illustrates this: the 311-page Böge report is essentially all about whether 450 million Europeans will commit appropriations amounting to 1.24%, 1.06% or 1.7% of GDP, in other words whether we shall spend EUR 1 024 billion, 870 billion or 825 billion over the next seven years while the United States spends USD 20 000 billion, some 20 times as much as the EU, over the same period. To put it another way, our divergences of some EUR 60 billion between Juncker and Barroso or between Chirac and Böge are equivalent to 0.3% of the US public expenditure estimates for the same period.
When we have more than 20 million unemployed and 50 million people living in poverty, it is obvious, and has been common knowledge since the time of Pericles, that the big issue is that of large loans for major investments, such as investments in our railways. If Brussels had actually been building railway stations, for example, instead of constitutional castles in the air, the European Union would not have been shunted into the sidings."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples